State Law to aid SFO in Filling Bay

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Date: Tue Apr 11 2000 - 13:29:54 PDT


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (root@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis [15.0.168.176]) by jr.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA12341 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com (hplms26.hpl.hp.com [15.255.168.31]) by opus.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA28632 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id NAA29716 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 1.50.3e1bf2e (4329); Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <50.3e1bf2e.2624e542@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:29:54 EDT
Subject: State Law to aid SFO in Filling Bay
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, billrx@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, bob@quake.net-DeleteThis, geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, Randyboz@aol.com-DeleteThis, karinaoc@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, harris4life@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, CoyoteSurf@aol.com-DeleteThis, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis, TFeldstein@grmslaw.com-DeleteThis, mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis, jrunge@netcom.com-DeleteThis, jmcgrath@portoakland.com-DeleteThis, lstanley@stanleyrose.com-DeleteThis, ErikRog@aol.com-DeleteThis, buck@velaresorts.com-DeleteThis, david@windcall.com-DeleteThis, carlyle@savesfbay.org-DeleteThis, jameslord@pacbell.net-DeleteThis, cems1@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Berteva50@aol.com-DeleteThis, clem.wang@altavista.com-DeleteThis (Clem), peter@windsurfers.net-DeleteThis (Peter Liu), gerry_owen@hp.com-DeleteThis (Gerry), ggbsf@earthlink.net-DeleteThis (Gary), nmackisoc@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, David_McGillicuddy@urscorp.com-DeleteThis, MStokowski@evokesoft.com-DeleteThis, sewing@nbn.com-DeleteThis, windrider@protectourbay.com-DeleteThis (Richard Zimmerman), allen.zimmermann@gte.net-DeleteThis, danf@juniper.net-DeleteThis (Dan Farmer), emunyak@argotech.com-DeleteThis (Ed Munyak), hunthy@sirius.com-DeleteThis (Hunt Hyde), jaime@lvision.com-DeleteThis (Jaime Cordera), kellywee@pacbell.net-DeleteThis (Kelly Wee), Leo_Bragagnolo@sfport.com-DeleteThis, puehlin@keynote.com_Peter-DeleteThis, Uehlin@imo13.mx.aol.com-DeleteThis, sstorm@well.com-DeleteThis (Shawn Storm), SSS4@pge.com-DeleteThis (Steve Schleimer), TAXWIND@aol.com-DeleteThis, janhalt@wenet.net-DeleteThis, benitaz@msn.com-DeleteThis, hangtime@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, jip@chrm.com-DeleteThis, peteru@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, gerry_owen@hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, suwanda@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, Ssuwanda@miadora.com-DeleteThis, JParkmann@chrm.com-DeleteThis (Jane Parkmann)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 54
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by jr.hpl.hp.com id NAA12341


State Senator John Burton is sponsoring a bill designed to weaken
environmental protection law in favor of San Francisco International Airport
(SFO). The bill (SB1562) will allow SFO to move forward with their runway
plans without examining the environmental impacts that mitigation plans may
have. As we have seen at Crissy Field, the most well intentioned restoration
plans may have serious negative impacts. The consensus opinion is that
serious beach erosion at Crissy Field is resulting from the design of the
restored wetland west of the beach. Mitigation plans often do not live up to
expectations and need to be carefully considered.

The bill is up for hearing on APRIL 24th before the Environmental Quality
Committe, chaired by Bryon Sher. This is a long e-mail, but I have included a
lot of background info for those who want to write a more informed letter.

WRITE A LETTER OR E-MAIL

Any communication to your representative will help. The point contact is
Bryon Sher, the Chair of the Environmental Quality Committe, but you should
also write your own representative and to John Burton to express your opinion.

For Senator info: http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp
(you can also access the bill itself from the site of the State Senate)

Senator Bryon Sher
Chair, Environmental Quality Committee
State Capital
Sacramento, California 95814
email:Senator.Sher@sen.ca.gov-DeleteThis

John Burton
State Capitol Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-1412
http://www.sen.ca.gov/burton/opinion.htp (post your opinion)

Other members of the Environmental Quality Committee

Cathie Wright (Vice Chair)
Richard Alarcón
Dede Alpert
Wesley Chesbro
Tom Hayden
Bruce McPherson
Jack O'Connell
Richard K. Rainey
Hilda Solis

Staff Director: Kip Lipper. Consultants: Arnie Peters and Randy Pestor.
Assistant: Ann Boone. Phone: (916) 324-0894, Room 2203.

More detailed info from Richard Zimmerman and Save The Bay follows. Don't
let SFO do an end around when we are looking at up to 2 square miles of fill,
up to 90 million cubic yards of dirt, and impaired bay circulation combined
with extensive dredging.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -

In a message dated 4/11/00 11:21:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
windrider@ProtectOurBay.com-DeleteThis writes:

> Let's write some letters!
>
> SB1562 has been scheduled for hearings on April 24 in Sher's Environmental
> Quality Committee. This bill, written solely for SFIA, would weaken CEQA
and
> let the airport buy a permit for fill. Let the State politicians know how
we
> feel about this. I've included a sample letter(Based on Save the Bay's
> letter to BCDC) but writing your own is preferable. But we've got to get
out
> and oppose this.
>
> I think it would be a good idea if you copy your local representatives
>

SAMPLE LETTER

> Senator Bryon Sher
> Chair, Environmental Quality Committee
> State Capital
> Sacramento, California 95814
>
> email:Senator.Sher@sen.ca.gov-DeleteThis
>
> I urge your committee not to support SB 1562. SB 1562 would weaken the
most
> basic environmental protection law BCDC relies upon to evaluate the impact
of
> projects on the Bay and its shoreline. The bill would: undercut the
> California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions requiring a thorough
> analysis of the proposed mitigation for a project in that project's
> Environmental Impact Report (EIR); establish a lower standard of
> environmental analysis for mitigation of projects sponsored by a public
> agency than projects which are privately-sponsored; allow some projects to "
> buy" mitigation before the appropriateness, feasibility or impacts of that
> mitigation are analyzed and permitted.
>
> CEQA's basic intent is to facilitate informed decision-making with public
> participation. CEQA aims to ensure full disclosure of potential and
> reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, and consideration of a
> reasonable range of alternatives, before a project is approved. The law
also
> requires this prior evaluation of impacts and alternatives for mitigation
of
> unavoidable project impacts.
>
> SB 1562 would move CEQA in the opposite direction without any legitimate
> public policy rationale. In particular, the bill as worded would allow San
> Francisco International Airport to prepare an EIR for its runway
> reconfiguration project that proposes funding a wetlands restoration
project
> as mitigation, even if that restoration project has not yet been thoroughly
> defined, analyzed and approved in an EIR.
>
> Prior investigation and evaluation of proposed mitigation within a
project's
> EIR is even more important for larger projects with larger impacts.
> Especially if the mitigation itself is a large and unprecedented project,
> such as restoration of 20,000 acres of salt evaporation ponds, full
> compliance with CEQA's disclosure and impacts analysis provisions is a
vital
> protection against unrealized promises.
>
> Wetland restoration is a top priority for the Bay, but wetland mitigation
> projects have a checkered history filled with many examples of projects
that
> ultimately did not mitigate for project impacts. Mitigation for any SFO
> runway construction on Bay fill must be analyzed thoroughly in the project
> EIR, both to ensure that it is addressing all unavoidable impacts such
> runways would cause, and to ensure that the mitigation is feasible, likely
to
> succeed and does not itself create negative environmental impacts.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -

BILL SUMMARIES:

SB 1562 Undercuts California Environmental Quality Act by relaxing required
analysis of a proposed mitigation for impacts of a project. It establishes a
lower standard of environmental analysis for mitigation of projects sponsored
by a public agency than for projects that are privately sponsored. It would
allow some projects to "buy" mitigation before appropriateness, feasibility
or impacts of that mitigation are identified, analyzed or permitted.
Under this proposed bill, SFO could propose to spend a large amount of money
for wetland restoration before we know how the impacts of SFO fill compare
with the benefits of wetland restoration.
Save The Bay is very supportive of wetland restoration in the bay, but
restoration is a complex, difficult and not always successful effort. This
bill would leave unanswered the question: Is environmental impact from
massive bay fill at SFO appropriately mitigated by money to restore a
different kind of aquatic habitat?
CEQA's basic intent is to facilitate informed decision-making with public
participation. CEQA aims to ensure full disclosure of potential and
reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, and consideration of a
reasonable range of alternatives, before a project is approved. The law also
requires this prior evaluation of impacts and alternatives for mitigation of
unavoidable project impacts.
SB 1562 would move CEQA in the opposite direction without any legitimate
public policy rationale. In particular, the bill as worded would allow SFO to
prepare an EIR for its runway reconfiguration project that proposes finding a
wetlands restoration project as mitigation, even if that restoration project
has not yet been thoroughly defined, analyzed, and approved in an EIR. Prior
investigation and evaluation of proposed mitigation within a project's EIR is
even more important for larger projects with larger impacts. Especially if
the mitigation itself is a large and unprecedented project, such as
restoration of 20,000 acres of salt evaporation ponds, full compliance with
CEQA's disclosure and impacts analysis provisions is a vital protection
against unrealized promises.
Wetland restoration is a top priority for the Bay, but wetland mitigation
projects have a checkered history filled with many examples of projects that
ultimately did not mitigate for project impacts. Mitigation for any SFO
runway construction on Bay fill must be analyzed thoroughly in the project
EIR, both to ensure that it is addressing all unavoidable impacts such
runways would cause, and to ensure that the mitigation is feasible, likely to
succeed, and does not itself create negative environmental impacts.

*********
Save The Bay
*********

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -

SAVE THE BAY'S BACKGROUND LETTER TO BCDC

March 31, 2000

Robert Tufts, Chairman San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission 30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2011 San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Agenda Item #11, April 6, 2000

Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

Save The Bay urges you not to vote to support either SB 1562 or SB 1610.

SB 1562 would weaken the most basic environmental protection law BCDC relies
upon to evaluate the impact of projects on the Bay and its shoreline. The
bill would:

undercut the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions requiring
a thorough analysis of the proposed mitigation for a project in that
project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR);

establish a lower standard of environmental analysis for mitigation of
projects sponsored by a public agency than projects which are
privately-sponsored;

allow some projects to "buy" mitigation before the appropriateness,
feasibility or impacts of that mitigation are analyzed and permitted.

CEQA's basic intent is to facilitate informed decision-making with public
participation. CEQA aims to ensure full disclosure of potential and
reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, and consideration of a
reasonable range of alternatives, before a project is approved. The law also
requires this prior evaluation of impacts and alternatives for mitigation of
unavoidable project impacts.

SB 1562 would move CEQA in the opposite direction without any legitimate
public policy rationale. In particular, the bill as worded would allow San
Francisco International Airport to prepare an EIR for its runway
reconfiguration project that proposes funding a wetlands restoration project
as mitigation, even if that restoration project has not yet been thoroughly
defined, analyzed and approved in an EIR.

Prior investigation and evaluation of proposed mitigation within a project's
EIR is even more important for larger projects with larger impacts.
Especially if the mitigation itself is a large and unprecedented project,
such as restoration of 20,000 acres of salt evaporation ponds, full
compliance with CEQA's disclosure and impacts analysis provisions is a vital
protection against unrealized promises.

Wetland restoration is a top priority for the Bay, but wetland mitigation
projects have a checkered history filled with many examples of projects that
ultimately did not mitigate for project impacts. Mitigation for any SFO
runway construction on Bay fill must be analyzed thoroughly in the project
EIR, both to ensure that it is addressing all unavoidable impacts such
runways would cause, and to ensure that the mitigation is feasible, likely to
succeed and does not itself create negative environmental impacts.

No committee of the state legislature has yet held a public hearing on SB
1562, and no state agency has yet taken a formal position on the legislation.

If the Commission takes any position on SB 1562, you should oppose it.

SB 1610 is a placeholder bill with language that is likely to change and
intentions that are unclear. The Commission should take no position on SB
1610 at this time.

Thank you for your consideration,

David Lewis Executive Director



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:24:04 PDT